final and formatted hungary briefing 8102015 · fenced out hungary’s violations of the rights of...

FENCED OUT

HUNGARY’S VIOLATIONS OF THE RIGHTS OF REFUGEES AND MIGRANTS

Amnesty International Publications

First published in 2015 by

Amnesty International Publications

International Secretariat

Peter Benenson House

1 Easton Street

London WC1X 0DW

United Kingdom

www.amnesty.org

© Amnesty International Publications 2015

Index: EUR 27/2614/2015

Original Language: English

Printed by Amnesty International, International Secretariat, United Kingdom

All rights reserved. This publication is copyright, but may be reproduced by any

method without fee for advocacy, campaigning and teaching purposes, but not

for resale. The copyright holders request that all such use be registered with

them for impact assessment purposes. For copying in any other circumstances,

or for reuse in other publications, or for translation or adaptation, prior written

permission must be obtained from the publishers, and a fee may be payable.

To request permission, or for any other inquiries, please contact

[email protected]

Amnesty International is a global movement of more than

7 million supporters, members and activists in more than 150

countries and territories who campaign to end grave abuses

of human rights.

Our vision is for every person to enjoy all the rights enshrined

in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and other

international human rights standards.

We are independent of any government, political ideology,

economic interest or religion and are funded mainly by our

membership and public donations.

CONTENTSIntroduction ................................................................................................................. 4

The unfolding of the “crisis” .......................................................................................... 5

International criticism of Hungary’s migration policies ................................................... 7

Methodology and purpose of this briefing .................................................................. 8

Refugees not welcome: Reception................................................................................. 10

Situation at the train stations................................................................................. 11

Reception at the border with Serbia: Röszke ............................................................ 12

Lack of information and enforced fingerprinting .......................................................... 12

The denial of access to asylum ..................................................................................... 14

Automatic rejections: Accelerated Asylum procedures .................................................. 15

“Safe countries of origin” and “safe third countries” lists ............................................ 15

Procedural shortcomings in the “transit zones” ........................................................... 16

The criminalisation of irregular entry into Hungary .......................................................... 20

The use of force to repel refugees and migrants at the border .......................................... 22

The excessive use of force against refugees and migrants on 16 September ................... 24

Recommendations ...................................................................................................... 26

FENCED OUT Hungary’s violations of the rights of refugees and migrants

Amnesty International October 2015 Index: EUR 27/2614/2015

4

INTRODUCTION “[W]e would like Europe to be preserved for the Europeans. But there is something we

would not just like but we want because it only depends on us: we want to preserve a

Hungarian Hungary”

Viktor Orbán, Prime Minister of Hungary, 25 July 20151

“We are also humans. Before we lived in peace and we have had our lives and dreams torn

apart by wars and greed of the governments.”

Hiba Almashhadani, an Iraqi refugee, 21 September 20152

In the first eight months of 2015, 161,OOO people claimed asylum in Hungary. The Office

for Immigration and Nationality has estimated that two thirds of those arriving3 were

asylum-seekers from Syria, Afghanistan and Iraq who entered the country irregularly.4

These are, unquestionably, large numbers and they have presented Hungary with

considerable, if not entirely unforeseeable, challenges. Hungary’s response to these

challenges has, however, been hugely problematic. While Hungary is bearing much of the

brunt of the EU’s structurally unbalanced asylum regime, it has also shown a singular

unwillingness to engage in collective EU efforts to address these shortcomings and

participate in initiatives designed to redistribute the responsibility for receiving and

processing asylum seekers, notably the relocation and “hotspot” processing schemes that

the European Commission and Council have been proposing.

Instead, Hungary has moved in recent months to construct fences along its southern

borders, criminalise irregular entry to its territory and expedite the return of asylum seekers

and refugees to Serbia, through its inclusion on a list of safe countries of transit. The

cumulative effect, and desired consequence, of these measures will be to render Hungary a

refugee protection free zone. Ultimately, Hungary’s attempts to insulate itself against a

regional, and wider global, refugee crisis can only be achieved at the expense of the respect

its international human rights and refugee law obligations. In fact, this is already

happening; only the completion of a fence along the Croatian border is preventing Hungary’s

isolationist migration policies from reaching fruition.

Hungary’s determination to avoid its responsibilities towards refugees is not just a

Hungarian problem. It is also an EU problem. Hungary’s policies are not preventing entry to

the EU, they are merely displacing the routes refugees and migrants are taking to reach it.

Hungary’s policies also represent a structural threat to the rule of law and the respect for

human rights that other member states and EU institutions cannot afford to ignore. The EU

should therefore engage Hungary in a formal discussion, as foreseen by Article 7 of the

Treaty of the European Union, with a view to bringing its migration and asylum policies in

line with EU and other international law obligations and ensuring that Hungary participates

fully in collective EU initiatives and reforms designed to address the current refugee crisis,

while receiving the considerable support it needs to do so.

1 See: http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/jul/30/viktor-orban-fidesz-hungary-prime-

minister-europe-neo-nazi

2 Phone interview with Amnesty International.

3 66 per cent. Statistics of the Office for Immigration and Nationality, 10 September 2015. On files

with Amnesty International.

4 Combined statistics of the Office for Immigration and Nationality, 10 September 2015 and the

National Police, 8 September 2015. On files with Amnesty International.



5

THE UNFOLDING OF THE “CRISIS” On 15 September 2015 the Hungarian government declared a “crisis situation caused by

mass immigration”.5 On the same day, the construction of a fence on the border with

Serbia was finished and amendments to the Criminal Code and Asylum Law, making it an

offence to enter the country through the border fence and establishing “transit zones” at

the border, entered into effect.

On 21 September, the Hungarian Parliament adopted further amendments to the Police Act

and the Act on National Defence. These extend the powers of the police in situations of

“crisis caused by mass immigration” to block roads, ban or restrain the operation of public

institutions, shut down areas and buildings and restrain or ban the entering and leaving of

such places. The new measures authorise the army to support the police securing the border

in the crisis situation and to use rubber bullets, tear gas grenades and pyrotechnical

devices.6

On 22 September, the Hungarian Parliament adopted a resolution which stated, among

other things, that Hungary should defend its borders by “every necessary means” against

“waves of illegal immigration”. The resolution stated: “[W]e cannot allow illegal migrants to

endanger the jobs and social security of the Hungarian people. We have the right to defend

our culture, language, and values.”7

The number of asylum seekers in Hungary in 2015, represents a significant increase on the

42,777 applications registered in 2014. 8 The Hungarian government had, however, long

been received signals of an expected increase in asylum applications. As early as 2012 the

United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR, the UN Refugee Agency) as well

as NGOs were calling for an improvement of the reception facilities for asylum-seekers in

Hungary and the need to bring them in line with the EU reception standards.9

Instead of introducing measures in line with these calls, the government started to work on

measures to keep refugees and migrants out of the country. In 2015 it spent 3.2 million

Euros10 on a “national consultation on immigration and terrorism”11 in the course of which

5 The government initially declared the state of emergency in two counties and later extend it to another

four counties: http://www.kormany.hu/en/prime-minister-s-office/news/government-declares-state-of-

crisis-due-to-mass-migration-in-two-counties

See also: http://www.kormany.hu/en/ministry-of-interior/news/government-extends-state-of-emergency-

to-a-further-four-counties

6 Article 54/D, Act CXLII/2015

7 The resolution was proposed on 28 August and approved on 22 September 2015:

http://www.parlament.hu/irom40/05984/05984.pdf

8 Office of Immigration and Nationality. Statistics on file with Amnesty International.

9 UNHCR. April, 2012. Hungary as Country of Asylum. p. 12. Available: http://www.unhcr-

centraleurope.org/pdf/resources/legal-documents/unhcr-handbooks-recommendations-and-

guidelines/hungary-as-a-country-of-asylum-2012.html

10 Ministry of Foreign Affairs. “National Consultation on Immigration to Begin”, 30 April 20015.

Available at: http://www.mfa.gov.hu/NR/rdonlyres/00355602-B646-44FB-8CBF-

946C6AC417C4/0/h%C3%ADrlev%C3%A9l_150430.pdf

11 The questionnaire is available here: http://www.kormany.hu/en/prime-minister-s-office/news/national-



6

it distributed a questionnaire to over eight million citizens seeking answers to questions

such as whether or not those who cross the borders illegally should be detained for a period

longer than 24 hours.12 Another 1.3 million Euros was spent on an anti-refugee billboard

campaign that included messages such as “If you come to Hungary, don’t take the jobs of

Hungarians” or “If you come to Hungary, you have to respect our culture!”.13 98 million

Euros was spent on the construction of the border fence with Serbia.14 The 2015 budget of

the Office of Immigration and Nationality responsible for reception of asylum seekers and

processing applications was 27.5 million Euros.15

The government did however move swiftly with the adoption of measures aiming at keeping

refugees and migrants out and facilitating their return. On 1 August 2015, an amendment

of the Asylum Law16 entered into force which authorized the government to issue a lists of

safe countries of origin and safe third countries of transit. Serbia, Macedonia and EU

member states, including Greece, are considered safe by the Hungarian authorities as a

result of these changes, meaning that asylum applications by people transiting through

from these countries can be sent back to them following expedited proceedings.17 On 15

September another set of amendments came into effect. They criminalized “illegal entry”

through the border fence and introduced “transit zones” for asylum-seekers at the border

and other changes.18

On 17 September, the Minister of Interior ordered a “partial border closure” of the border

crossings at the Röszke/Horgoš motorway and at the express road for a period of 30 days. It

justified it as a measure “in the interest of the protection of public security”.19 During the

period of the partial border closure, it was not possible for passengers, vehicles and cargo to

cross the state border between Hungary and Serbia. The border was re-opened on 20

September after the Hungarian and Serbian Ministries of Interior “succeeded in finding a

solution to opening the border crossing station and ensuring the continued flow of

passenger and cargo traffic.”20

Following the effective sealing off of the border with Serbia in mid-September, refugees and

migrants started entering Hungary through the border with Croatia through the crossings at

consultation-on-immigration-to-begin

12 “Hungary: Government's national consultation on immigration and terrorism creates widespread

debate”, 31 May 2015. Available at: https://ec.europa.eu/migrant-

integration/index.cfm?action=furl.go&go=/news/hungary-governments-national-consultation-on-

immigration-and-terrorism-creates-widespread-debate&pdf=1

13 See: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-33091597

14 Hungarian Helsinki Committee. “Immigration and Asylum in Hungary: Facts and Figures”. August

2015.

15 Act C 2014, Hungary's state budget for 2015.

16 Act CXXVII/2015.

17 See Amnesty International’s concerns over the use of “safe country” lists:

https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2015/07/hungary-change-to-asylum-law-puts-tens-of-

thousands-at-risk/

18 Amendments of: the Asylum Law LXXX/2007; Act C/2012 on the Criminal Code; Act XIX/1998 on

Criminal Procedure.

19 Ministry of Interior, 17 September 2015: http://www.kormany.hu/en/ministry-of-interior/news/partial-

border-closure-at-the-roszke-horgos-border-crossing-station

20 http://www.kormany.hu/en/ministry-of-interior/news/roszke-border-crossing-station-has-been-reopened



7

Beremend21 and Zakány.22 By the beginning of October an average of about 4,000 people

were entering on a daily basis according to the Hungarian police.23 The measures taken by

the Hungarian government have therefore served primarily to redirect the flow of refugees

and migrants, not stop it. However, Hungary has already begun constructing a similar fence

along the Croatian border, and has already almost completed the laying of barbed wire

along its entirety.24 Once a full-scale fence has been constructed, asylum-seekers will

effectively no longer be able to access Hungarian territory and protection proceedings.

Those that do succeed in crossing the fence will be liable to prosecution – and return to

Serbia or Croatia.25

INTERNATIONAL CRITICISM OF HUNGARY’S MIGRATION POLICIES Hungary’s draconian response to the increase of the number of refugees and migrants

entering the country has been roundly criticised by international human rights bodies.

On 15 September, the Secretary General of the Council of Europe, Thorbjørn Jagland wrote

to the Hungarian Prime Minister, Viktor Orbán, expressing concerns over the legislation

adopted “in the context of the migration crisis“. He asked for assurances that Hungary is

still committed to its obligations under the European Convention on Human Rights. The

Secretary General also warned that Hungary cannot derogate from its obligation to protect

the right to life, prohibition of torture and other rights.26

On 17 September, the UN Human Rights Commissioner Zeid Ra’ad Al Hussein said that

amendments of the Criminal Code and the Asylum Law which entered into force on 15

September are incompatible with the human rights commitments binding on Hungary.

“This is an entirely unacceptable infringement of the human rights of refugees and

migrants. Seeking asylum is not a crime, and neither is entering a country irregularly.” The

UN Human Rights Commissioner further observed that some of the actions carried out by

the Hungarian authorities, such as denying entry, arresting, summarily rejecting and

returning refugees, using disproportionate force on migrants and refugees, as well as

reportedly assaulting journalists and seizing video documentation, amounted to clear

violations of international law.27 He also noted “the xenophobic and anti-Muslim views that

appear to lie at the heart of current Hungarian Government policy”.

The response of the EU institutions has been less unequivocal. The EU Commissioner for

Migration, Home Affairs and Citizenship, Dimitris Avramopolous, declared during his visit to

21 About 200 kilometres away from Horgoš-Röszke

22 About 400 kilometres away from Horgoš-Röszke

23 Daily statistics of the Hungarian Police: http://police.hu/hirek-es-informaciok/legfrissebb-

hireink/hatarrendeszet/napi-tajekoztato-6

24 The Hungarian government has announced plans to construct a fence along a 41 km stretch of is

border with Croatia. : http://www.kormany.hu/en/the-prime-minister/news/construction-of-border-fence-

on-croatian-section-has-begun

25 Section 352/A of the Act C/2012 of the Criminal Code

26 Council of Europe. “Secretary General Questions Hungary over Human Rights”, 15 September 2015.

Available: http://www.coe.int/en/web/portal/-/secretary-general-questions-hungary-over-human-

rights?redirect=http://www.coe.int/en/web/secretary-

general/home?p_p_id=101_INSTANCE_oURUJmJo9jX9&p_p_lifecycle=0&p_p_state=normal&p_p_mod

e=view&p_p_col_id=column-5&p_p_col_count=2

27 Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights. “Hungary violating international law in response

to migration crisis: Zeid” Available at: http://ohchr.org/EN/NewsEvents/Pages/DisplayNews.aspx



8

Hungary on 17 September that “[The EU] will work collectively to protect the Union’s

external borders.” Hungary, he noted, “is doing part in this work… [although the EC does]

not always agree with the means used.” Commissioner Avramopolous expressed a

commitment “to work with [EU’s] neighbours - establishing a common list of safe countries

of origin and intensifying cooperation with the Western Balkan countries and Turkey.” At

the same time, however, he acknowledged a “moral duty… inscribed in international and

European laws” to offer protection to those who need it.28

METHODOLOGY AND PURPOSE OF THIS BRIEFING This briefing was written on the basis of two visits of Amnesty International’s researchers to

Hungary between 1 to 7 September and 15 to 19 September 2015. The researchers carried

out 57 interviews with individuals or groups of refugees and migrants at the Keleti and

Nyugati stations in Budapest,29 the reception centre in Bicske,30 the makeshift “collection

point” in Röszke,31 at the entrance to the Röszke detention centre32 and at the

Röszke/Horgoš border crossing.33 Amnesty International examined the adequacy of the

reception conditions, the police treatment of the refugees and migrants and the availability

of information on asylum process. On 23 September, Amnesty International staff observed

proceedings against three men facing charges of “prohibited crossing through the border

barrier” at the Szeged Regional Court. Representatives of the UNHCR, Hungarian Helsinki

Committee and volunteers providing assistance to the refugees and migrants, voluntary

police officers, police officers on duty and builders responsible for the construction of the

“transit zones” were interviewed during and after the country visits. Amnesty International

requested access to the detention centre in Röszke and a meeting with the head of Border

Police Department in Csongrád County on 1 September, which were declined.

This briefing outlines Hungary’s violations of international and EU law with respect to the

rights of both persons in need of international protection and other people on the move. It

provides evidence of Hungary’s:

• Failure to provide adequate reception conditions for asylum-seekers during early

September 2015;

• Attempts to shift its responsibility for providing access to a prompt and effective

asylum procedure to third countries (essentially Serbia), regardless of whether the

applicants would have access to a prompt and efficient asylum procedure and

whether there is a real risk of refoulement;34

• Application of the “safe country of origin” and “safe third country” concepts in a

manner that breaches the requirement, set out in EU law, that applicants be able to

“challenge the application of the safe third country concept on the grounds that the

third country is not safe in his or her particular circumstances”;35

• Breach of its obligation to ensure the right of effective remedy in appeals against

28 Remarks by Commissioner Avramopoulos during his visit to Hungary. 17 September 2015. Available

here: http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_SPEECH-15-5663_en.htm

29 On 1, 2 and 3 September 2015.

30 4 September 2015.

31 5 and 6 September 2015.

32 With groups of refugees and asylum seekers waiting to be processed, 6 September 2015.

33 15, 16 and 18 September 2015

34 In breach of the Asylum Procedures Directive (Recast), Article 38(2).

35 Asylum Procedures Directive (Recast), Article 38(2)c



9

decisions on asylum procedure;36

• Breach of the prohibition37 on imposing penalties on refugees who unlawfully enter

Hungarian territory.

36 Article 46 of the Procedure Directive (Recast) 2013/32/EU

37 Article 31 of the Geneva Convention



10

REFUGEES NOT WELCOME:

RECEPTION In June 2015, Hungary was already struggling to provide adequate reception for the large

numbers of refugees and asylum-seekers entering the country. “We cannot give them

blankets and beds. We have even run out of tents,” Lajos Kosa, vice president of the ruling

party Fidesz declared.38 Despite this acknowledgment, the government declined to improve

or enhance the reception facilities. It refused without any explanation an offer by UNHCR

to provide mobile homes with the capacity to accommodate 2,400 persons.39 Instead, it

focused all its efforts on reducing the numbers of arriving refugees and asylum-seekers and

expediting their expulsion.

In the absence of adequate reception facilities and in the hope of proceeding to places

where reception would be more adequate, refugees and asylum-seekers started staying at

Budapest’s main train stations, Keleti, Nyugati and Deli. In August, the municipality of

Budapest designated areas at these train stations as “transit zones” where hundreds of

refugees stayed for days.40 They did not erect official reception facilities, however: this

designation amounted rather to a tolerating of the rough sleeping of refugees and migrants

in the train station areas and nearby parks and streets.

Between 2 and 5 September, the Hungarian Railways suspended trains to Austria from

Keleti station. At least one day before the suspension, the platforms were closed to asylum-

seekers and blocked by the police. On 3 September, the police lifted the barriers and

hundreds of people, many of whom bought tickets to Munich or other German cities the

days before, rushed to a train featuring a German flag. They were desperate to leave

Hungary after being stuck for days in dire conditions. The carriages quickly filled and at

about 11am the train departed just to be stopped about 30 km outside Budapest, at the

town of Bicske.

One of the people who was on the train told Amnesty International:

“The train stopped. The police announced that we have to disembark otherwise they would

use force. So we complied, opened the doors and started walking to the platform. Outside

the station there were buses. The police were shouting and we saw smoke. I decided to

escape so I walked away and continued along the railways hoping I was heading in the

direction of Austria. But I was walking back to Budapest instead! Eventually I gave up and

took a taxi back to Keleti [train station] for 30 euros.”41

A few hundred people refused to disembark the train and proceed to the reception centre at

Bicske which was – as those interviewed there reported – severely over-crowed.42 As a

38 Reuters, 26 June 2015, “Hungary sounds the alarm about new front in EU’s migrant crisis”.

39 Interview with UNHCR representative on 4 September 2015, Bicske.

40 To be distinguished from the “transit zones” at the borders where the asylum applications are being

processed.

41 Interview at Keleti station, 3 September 2015.

42 Refugees and asylum-seekers interviewed at the gate of the centre on the night of 4 September

reported there were about 2,000 people; while the capacity of the centre is about 500, according to

the Hungarian Helsinki Committee.



11

result, the police held them on the train until the next day, 4 September. At about 2:30pm,

a group of over 200 people run off the train, followed by riot police. Some 400 metres away

from the station, one man from the group collapsed and died. A paramedic leading the

resuscitation efforts told Amnesty International that the likely cause of the death was an

obstruction of a blood vessel.43

As of late afternoon on 4 September, the riot police started removing all those still on the

train and transferring them to the reception centre in Bicske.44 Some of the refugees and

asylum-seekers interviewed at the gate of the reception centre reported use of force against

those who resisted, including small children.45

The Hungarian government has not assumed any responsibility for events on 3 and 4

September and argued that the chaotic situation was a result of misunderstanding and lack

of clear communication which was “outside control of the Hungarian authorities.”46

SITUATION AT THE TRAIN STATIONS During Amnesty International’s visit in early September, thousands of refugees and asylum-

seekers were sleeping rough in the area of Budapest’s main train station, Keleti. The

facilities provided by the municipality were limited to six water taps and a few portable

toilets. The rest, including food distribution, provision of medical aid, distribution of

sleeping bags, tents and clothes was delivered solely by volunteers who rented an “office”

in a space below the station which served as storage for donations. “Some people have been

staying here as long as one month. They usually stay few days here, then sleep in a nearby

park…” one of the volunteers told Amnesty International.47

Amnesty International interviewed several people with special needs who were sleeping

rough at Keleti. Ali, a Syrian student of English language, had a kidney transplant four years

ago and a document by the Syrian Medical Association confirming that he was still pursuing

treatment. He had been staying at the train station for four days and, as a result of the

conditions there, was very distressed during the interview. A man from Afghanistan had

been sleeping on the floor at the Keleti station with his wife and five children, one of whom

had a severe disability.48 Dina, a 46 year old Syrian woman, came to Hungary on 14 August

2015 together with her sons and a daughter-in-law who was 7 months pregnant. They were

taken into police custody and kept there for 16 hours without being given food or water.

They were finger-printed and released. When we met her at Keleti, Dina had already bought

train tickets to Germany.

“I want to start a new life in peace… They are treating us like animals, worse than animals.

It prevents us to stay here. We feel that we are not welcome.”

Another “transit zone” was at the Nyugati station. It was much smaller, hosting about 200

people, mostly in tents when Amnesty International visited the station on 2 September.49

Just like at Keleti, support to refugees in the form of donations of food, clothes, sleeping

43 Causes of which are associated also with physical inactivity for instance during travelling or long

journey. See: http://www.nhs.uk/Conditions/pulmonary-embolism/Pages/Causes.aspx

44 Amnesty International’s observation on the site.

45 Images on files with Amnesty International

46 Letter sent to Amnesty International by the Hungarian Embassy in Spain on 23 September 2015.

47 3 September 2015

48 Interviewed on 3 September 2015

49 2 September 2015.



12

bags and tents was only being provided by volunteers. The municipality had installed

portable toilets.

RECEPTION AT THE BORDER WITH SERBIA: RÖSZKE Up until the closure of the border with Serbia on 15 September, Röszke, a village at the

border with Serbia had been the first point of entry for thousands of refugees and migrants

entering Hungary on a daily basis. While in June, about 1,000 people were arriving every

day, their numbers had risen to 2,000 to 3,000 a day by early September.50 Hungarian

authorities failed to provide adequate reception conditions for the refugees and asylum-

seekers arriving. A few hundred metres after the border crossing the police established a

makeshift “collection point”.51 People who had arrived in the evening or at night had to

sleep rough due to lack of any facilities bar a few portable toilets. Water and food was

distributed by volunteers. During the day, police was providing buses to take people to a

detention facility about 700 metres away, where they would be registered.

On 6 September 2015, shortly after midnight, a group of young Syrians approached

Amnesty International researchers, begging them to make sure they were not left at the

“collection point”. The night was cold, the men, women and children were shivering and

looked terrified at the prospect of sleeping in the middle of a field without blankets. They

eventually made it to the detention centre that night with the help of volunteers who walked

them there. Hashen, a 19 year-old high school graduate from Syria, later told Amnesty

International about his experience in Hungary:

“The [detention centre] was like a prison. They put us in a big tent, gave us a pillow and a

blanket. There was no registration there, they only gave us wristbands with the name of our

country on it: Syria. The next day they took us to a police station where we waited from 2pm

to 1am. There were about 100 people, we all waited for hours. From there they took us by

bus to another camp from where we left for Austria.”

The detention centre in Röszke has become infamous after shocking images of scores of

refugees and asylum-seekers being thrown food by Hungarian police at a makeshift

registration centre were leaked to the media on 10 September.52 Amnesty International

spoke to several people who had stayed in the centre between one to three days. They

reported some instances of ill-treatment by the police and also reported that food and water

was in short supply, as were sanitation facilities. “I felt like I was back in Syria,” one of the

refugees described the centre.53

LACK OF INFORMATION AND ENFORCED FINGERPRINTING All the refugees and asylum-seekers interviewed by Amnesty International in various

locations in Hungary in September 2015 lacked information about their rights, the asylum

procedure and on the EU asylum system. They feared the registration process in Hungary,

including fingerprinting – the method used to identify asylum-seekers and migrants within

the EU and ensure the implementation of the Dublin system. Several people reported that

police used force against them when they resisted during the fingerprinting process. “If you

refuse to give fingerprints, they beat you up, or they tell you to go to Serbia,” Mostafa from

Aleppo, Syria, said.54 Another refugee staying at the Keleti station reported that on 1

50 Interview with a volunteer police officer, 5 September 2015, Röszke.

51 A volunteer from Migrant Szolidarity Group (Migszol), Szeged, told Amnesty International that the

“collection point” was established in August after Macedonia opened the borders with Greece.

52 Videos available here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bRbmFYYbcyw

53 Interview on 2 September, Nyugati station.

54 Interview at the Keleti station, Budapest, 3 September 2015.



13

September the police forced a number of people on the bus and beat those who refused to

comply: “They took me as well and drew us to Bicske [a town with a reception centre]. But I

later escaped.”55

Dara, a 45-year old Syrian man staying at Keleti station with his two little sons, told

Amnesty International that the police forced people to give fingerprints and that he saw

many people coming to Keleti with injuries.56

USE OF FORCE DURING FINGERPRINTING Hiba, a 32-year old asylum-seeker from Tikrit, Iraq, reported a fractured higher thigh after being pushed by a

police officer against the wall. She and her husband ran away from their hometown first to Kirkuk in June 2014 and from there to Baghdad in April 2015. They stayed in Baghdad for four months during which time

they received death threats from their Shia neighbours after they had learned they were Sunnis.

“Some people told us that it was a childish joke and that there was no reason to worry but when somebody

burned my car that I had parked at the front door and warned us to leave or be killed, we decided to leave.”

Hiba and her husband left Baghdad on 17 August 2015. Amnesty International met them twice at the train

station at Keleti in Budapest in September. The second time Hiba was visibly distressed and burst into tears explaining her recent encounter with the Hungarian police:

“We tried to get to Austria by train on 2 September. The police stopped us and took us to a police station [in

Tatabánya]. We stayed there from 7am until midnight without food or water. The police wanted to take our

fingerprints but I didn’t want to give them. I was holding my husband when a [female] police officer pulled

me away from him and pushed me so hard that I hit the wall. There was another police officer who watched

the incident but didn’t do anything.”57

Hiba is of a slight stature and fractured her upper thigh as a result of the fall.58 She also suffers from

swollen calves and swollen lower belly, the latter being a result of limited food intake during the journey to the EU, according to her medical report. The report further notes that she is now “learning to walk without a

support.”

Although Hiba and her husband made it to Germany and applied for asylum in Hamburg, she fears for their future.

“I have been living in uncertainty and stress for months. We are now waiting for a decision on our asylum

claim but people [other asylum-seekers] are telling us we might be rejected and send back to Hungary and

then back to Iraq. But there is no way how we can go back to Tikrit, it’s not safe.”59

55 Interview with Ahmand from Syria. Keleti station, Budapest, 2 September 2015

56 3 September 2015

57 Interview at the Keleti station, Budapest, 3 September 2015.

58 Medical report from a clinic in Hamburg, 20 September 2015. On file with Amnesty International.

59 Phone interview, 21 September 2015.



14

THE DENIAL OF ACCESS TO ASYLUM On 15 September, Hungary sealed off its border with Serbia. On that day, a 175-km long

two-layered fence (a smaller, razor-wire fence and a 3-metre tall fence) was completed on

this section of the border and refugees and migrants were prevented from entering the

country by razor wire, the police and the army. By that evening, about 1,000 refugees and

migrants were staying in the area close to the border fence without any access to sanitation

or assistance. They slept rough and food and water was provided only by volunteers.

People who had been stranded at the border crossing Röszke/Horgoš as of 15 September

had in theory the option of applying for asylum in the hastily put together “transit zones”,

along the country’s borders intended to host asylum-seekers and process their claims before

allowing them to officially enter Hungarian territory (see below).60 However, most of the

people interviewed by Amnesty International at the border on 15 and 16 September didn’t

know about their right to apply for asylum in the “transit zone”; no information on the

procedure was available, the containers in which the “transit zones” are placed, were

locked and not marked. Once or twice an hour, a police officer accompanied by a translator

speaking Arabic, Farsi and Urdu opened the door of the container and randomly allowed

groups of two to five persons to enter the “transit zone”. People were entering assuming

that they would be allowed to proceed to Hungary this way. As described below, however,

the majority of these were returned straight back to Serbia. The rest was stuck in the border

area’s makeshift camp hoping that the border would be opened at some point. Some gave

up and left the area immediately, others remained a few days longer before moving on to

the Croatia as it became apparent that the border would remain closed indefinitely.

A man in a group of 50 Syrians travelling together who left the makeshift camp in

Röszke/Horgoš on 16 September 2015 told Amnesty International:

“We did not try [to enter] the “transit zones”. We heard that everyone who tried failed and

we feared we could not try anywhere else after [because of getting registered in the

Schengen Information System]. There are about a dozen children in our group.” 61

Although Hungary has the prerogative to control the access of persons to its territory and a

legitimate interest in doing so, it must do so in conformity with its obligations under

international human rights law and EU law to respect the rights of those requesting

international protection.62 Amnesty International’s research shows that measures introduced

and implemented in August and September 2015 are directly violating Hungary’s

international human rights obligations.

60 Section 15/A and 71/A of the Amended Asylulm Law LXXX/2007 (September 2015 Amendment).

61 Interviewed by Amnesty International in Subotica.

62 Articles 3(b); 5(4)(c); 13(1) of the Schengen Border Code; Articles 3, 6 and 9 of the Procedures

Directive (Recast).



15

AUTOMATIC REJECTIONS: ACCELERATED ASYLUM PROCEDURES “People have the right to claim asylum. But those who abuse the asylum system… should

be sent back.”

Dimitris Avramopolous, the EU Commissioner for Migration 30 June, Budapest.63

While the number of people at the Röszke/Horgoš border crossing hoping to enter Hungary

was over 2,000 on 15 and 16 September, only a handful entered the “transit zones”, the

only places where they could have applied for asylum at that border. Established by one of

the amendments to the Asylum Law, “transit zones” at the country’s borders are designed

to host asylum-seekers and process their claims before allowing them to officially enter

Hungarian territory (see below). Other amendments to the Asylum Law established an

expedited procedure64 for the determination of the asylum claims submitted in the “transit

zones” at the border,65 as well as “safe countries of origin”66 and “safe third countries”

lists.67

The procedure at the border under the current law has significant shortcomings which

effectively render access to asylum impossible. Overall, the Hungarian law and practice

with respect to asylum applications lodged at the border fall short of the relevant procedural

safeguards, particularly with regard to the right to interpretation and legal assistance (see

the section below). These serious shortcomings of the Hungarian asylum law could result in

refoulement (directly or indirectly) and thus a breach of EU Law,68 refugee law and

international human rights law.

“SAFE COUNTRIES OF ORIGIN” AND “SAFE THIRD COUNTRIES” LISTS Following the August amendment of the Asylum Law, asylum-seekers entering from Serbia

face the quasi-automatic rejection of their application.69 Under the law, Serbia is

considered a “safe third country” and if the applicant travelled through it or stayed there, it

is assumed that he or she “could have applied for effective protection there”.70 As the “safe

third country” assessment takes place at the admissibility stage of the application, a claim

can be rejected before a review of its merits and of the particular circumstances of the

applicant.

With regard to safe countries of origin, Amnesty International considers that the imposition

of an expedited procedure to asylum seekers originating from countries considered to be

“safe”, while such a procedure is not imposed on asylum seekers originating from other

countries, amounts to discrimination on the basis of their national origin. The prohibition of

discrimination based on nationality is one of the fundamental principles of international

law, recognised among others by Article 3 of the 1951 Refugee Convention, Article 21 of

63 Transcript of Avramopolous’ speech is available here: http://www.statewatch.org/news/2015/jun/eu-

dg-home-speech-hungary.pdf

64 Section 47 of the Asylum Law (amendment entering into force on 1 August 2015).

65 Section 71/A of the Amended Asylum Law LXXX/2007 (amendment entering into force on 15

September 2015).

66 Section 51(7)(b) ) of the Asylum Law (amendment entering into force on 1 August 2015).

67 Section Section 51(2)(b) of the Asylum Law (amendment entering into force on 1 August 2015).

68 Article 21 Qualification Directive (Recast) 2011/95/EU, Article 38.1(c) Procedures Directive

(Recast), Article 3(b) Schengen Borders Code, Article 5 Returns Directive

69 Hungarian Helsinki Committee (2015), No Country for Refugees.

70 Section 51(2) and 51(4) of the Asylum Law.



16

the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and Article 26 of the

International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, as well as the Hungarian Constitution

(Article XV).

Furthermore, the Hungarian law restricts access to the regular asylum procedure for asylum

seekers originating from the countries in the list, on the basis of a presumption of “safety”

in his/her country of origin. While an applicant may rebut the presumption of safety, s/he

bears the burden of proof and is required to do so in an accelerated procedure with fewer

safeguards. As a result of these restrictions, individuals in need of international protection

risk being returned to a “safe country of origin” in violation of the obligation of non-

refoulement.

The inclusion of Serbia on the list of safe countries of transit it particularly problematic. The

situation in Serbia exposes refugees and asylum-seekers to a risk of human rights violations.

Amnesty International's recent research demonstrates that the asylum system in Serbia is

ineffective and fails to guarantee access to international protection to even prima facie

refugees, including Syrian nationals, who make up the majority of applicants.71 Failures and

delays in the implementation of the provisions of Serbia’s Asylum Law deny asylum-seekers

a prompt and effective individual assessment of their protection needs. The failure of the

Serbian Asylum Office to provide asylum-seekers with information on submitting a claim,

identify vulnerable persons, conduct asylum interviews promptly and provide first-instance

decisions in a timely fashion, places a significant number of individuals at risk of refoulement

to Macedonia and onwards to Greece.

Although over 150,000 individuals have registered by the police their intention to claim

asylum in Serbia, by the end of August 2015 only 545 asylum applications have actually

been submitted and 15 refugee and 9 subsidiary protection statuses were granted. All other

refugees and migrants left the country towards Hungary, and since 15 September, towards

Croatia. In June 2015, the UN Committee against Torture concluded that “persons expelled

from Hungary into Serbia are subjected to forced return to the former Yugoslav Republic of

Macedonia, in application of the readmission agreements, without effective procedural

guarantees to gain access to legal remedies against the decision”.72

Amnesty International is concerned that the inclusion of Serbia, a country through which the

overwhelming majority of asylum-seekers in Hungary inevitably pass, will result in Hungary

denying refugees access to protection and returning them to a country where their protection

needs and other human rights will not be met.

PROCEDURAL SHORTCOMINGS IN THE “TRANSIT ZONES” “Transit zones” were introduced in a response to the “crisis situation caused by mass

immigration”.73 Currently there are two “transit zones”, one in Röszke/Horgoš crossing and

another one in Tompa, which serve as facilities at the border where the asylum applications

are processed. They consist of a set of containers in which the refugee authority makes

71 Amnesty International, 2015. Europe’s Borderland: Violations Against Refugees and Migrants in

Macedonia, Serbia and Hungary. (Index: EUR 70/1579/2015) available at:

www.amnesty.org/en/documents/eur70/1579/2015/en/ (accessed 16 September 2015).

72 Committee against Torture, Concluding Observations on Serbia. CAT/C/SRB/CO/2. 3 June 2015,

para. 15. Available at daccess-dds-

ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/G15/112/60/PDF/G1511260.pdf?OpenElement (accessed 15 September

2015) and UNHCR, The Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia as a country of asylum: Observations

on the situation of asylum-seekers and refugees in the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, August

2015, available at: www.refworld.org/docid/55c9c70e4.html (accessed 19 August 2015).

73 Section 80 of the LXXX/2007 Asylum Law (Section 16 of the amendment).



17

decisions on admissibility of the asylum applications,74 and in which rejected applicants

can stay in case they decide to appeal the decisions. People in the “transit zones” have

access to Hungarian territory only if their application for asylum is deemed admissible (see

below: “Transit zones” as legal fictions).75 According to the Hungarian Helsinki Committee

they were initially envisaged as large “prison camps” where the asylum-seekers would stay

during the procedure, up to four weeks.76

Soon after the “transit zones” were opened on 15 September, it became clear that they

would be able to process only a minimal number of people. According to a government

statement, on 15 and 16 September, 185 persons were admitted to “transit zones” across

the country.77 Amnesty International observed that only about two to five persons an hour

would be let in to the containers in the “transit zone” in Röszke/Horgoš during those two

days while thousands of others were waiting in Serbia without having any information on the

access to asylum procedure.78 The “transit zone” in Tompa was empty during Amnesty

International’s visit on 15 September.

Although the Asylum Law envisaged that the admissibility procedure in the “transit zones”

at the border should take up to eight days, Amnesty International observed that during the

first days of the law entering into force, decisions were being made within three to four

hours. The rejected asylum-seekers were given the decisions in writing in Hungarian only.

The documents given to them informed them about the possibility of appeal. The

individuals concerned were also informed about the possibility of appeal verbally but, at

least in one case, an applicant was told he stood no chance unless he had a family in

Hungary.79 Indeed, most of those admitted to transit zones appear to have declined this

possibility, fearing that it would merely prolong their detention without in any way

increasing their chances of being admitted to Hungary. All those who entered the “transit

zones” were overwhelmingly likely to be rejected within the admissibility procedure on the

basis that they entered Hungary through Serbia, a “safe third country” under Hungarian

law.80 Those asylum-seekers whose applications were rejected at the “transit zones” were

simply taken back to Serbia.

PROCEDURES IN THE “TRANSIT ZONES”: ADNAN’S CASE Adnan (not his real name), a Syrian refugee from Damascus, described the procedure in the “transit zone” as he experienced it on 16 September in Röszke:

“I was told by another person here to go in the container if I wanted to apply for asylum, so I did... I went into

the first room, where there was only police. I asked for a translator but I did not receive one. I was given a

ticket with a number [and gave] my personal details and fingerprints...

I was asked if I spoke any other language, so I said yes – Russian. The Afghan… [interpreter] also spoke

Russian so he was the one who asked me questions. [They were]… simple ones like: Where do you come

74 Section 71A (3) of the LXXX/2007 Asylum Law (Section 15 of the amendment).

75 Section 15 (5) of the Asylum Law.

76 Hungarian Helsinki Committee (2015), No Country for Refugees, p. 2.

77 Ibid. p. 2

78 Amnesty International’s interviews with refugees and migrants at the Röszke/Horgoš “transit zone” on

15 and 16 September 2015; Hungarian Helsinki Committee (2015), No Country for Refugees, p.3

79 Interview with Adnan (not his real name), 16 September 2015.

80 Section 51(2) and 51(4) of the Asylum Law. See Amnesty International’s analysis:

https://www.amnesty.org/en/documents/eur27/2190/2015/en/



18

from? How did you come here? ... It took 10 minutes. After this I was told I could not go to the other side [to

enter Hungary].

Before I was given the decision I was asked how I wanted to go away from there… The translator told me

that I could choose to either go back voluntarily… [or] to be deported by force.

One policeman that was standing at the door told me to go back to Syria. He said “we don’t like you, go!” I

wanted to complain about [him] but didn’t know how. I didn’t want to leave that place without making a

complaint. I told other police officer I wanted to complain about this treatment and because he called me a

terrorist.

I was then taken to another room for 30 minutes, just waiting. We were three in the room, all from Damascus,

locked up. The two others were also told to go back. The Arabic translator just came to us and said he got

bad news: we will be deported to Serbia. I said please I can’t go back to Serbia. But I was just given this

document [the decision on admissibility] and told to “go out”. The exit was at the end of the row of

containers where the cars are parked.

I was given my document but was not told about the content, just asked to sign paper without knowing

what’s in there. It was nine pages long and in Hungarian. I realized only later that I have been expelled from

Hungary.

The other two [Syrian men] said they would appeal. We were told by a woman in green vest [Hungarian Office

for Immigration and Nationality] that [we could appeal within a week] … but it would be more difficult. I

was told that I would be successful only if I have relatives, family in Hungary, and not even then for sure.”

Amnesty International has obtained a copy of the decision on Adnan’s application for international protection issued by the Office of Immigration and Nationality. The rejection of his application is “due to

inadmissibility” because he said during the interview he had arrived to Hungary from Serbia.81 The rejection was justified with the reference to the provisions of Section 51 of the LXXX/2007 Asylum Law, under which

applications for asylum are inadmissible if there is a “safe third country” where the applicant stayed before entering Hungary, and the Government Regulation 1919/2015 under which Serbia is considered a safe third

country. In the decision, the applicant is informed that he is not considered to be at risk of refoulement.

Adnan told Amnesty International, that he was not asked any questions about his protection needs during the interview in the transit zone. There was no individualised procedure in his case.

Together with the rejection of his asylum application, Adnan also received an expulsion order “from the

territory of the EU to Serbia”. He has been also barred from re-entering the EU within the period of one year and his personal details were shared within the Schengen Information System (SIS II).

Under the EU Procedures Directive, Hungary must ensure free legal assistance and

representation for those asylum-seekers who decide to appeal a decision and require legal

aid. Such assistance shall include at a minimum preparation for the hearing.82 However,

according to the Hungarian Helsinki Committee (HHC), accessibility to legal aid in the

transit zones is extremely limited, as lawyers do not have an access there.

In addition to this, there are procedural concerns over access to effective remedy stemming

directly from the amended Asylum Law. The period for submitting an appeal of the first

instance decision on admissibility is seven days and the court has to deliver a decision on

appeal within eight days. Such a short period is insufficient for a full examination of the

case and the law, including an examination of the international protection needs of the

81 The decision is available on files with Amnesty International.

82 EU Procedure Directive (Recast) 2013/32/EU, Article 20(1)



19

applicant as required by the EU law.83

The EU’s Procedures Directive obliges Hungary to ensure that asylum applications are

examined and decisions on them taken individually, objectively and impartially.84 Decisions

issued in the transit zones within an extremely short period of just a few hours, in the

absence of legal aid, and no consideration of individual grounds of the application85 fail to

meet these criteria and thus put Hungary in breach of EU law, as well as relevant

international human rights law.

“TRANSIT ZONES” AS LEGAL FICTIONS Hungary considers the “transit zones” to have a special status in relation to the country’s territory. Although they are established on its territory,86 persons held there “will have access to Hungarian territory” only if

their application for asylum is deemed admissible.87 Shortly before the opening of the transit zones at the

borders on 15 September, the Hungarian Minister of Justice explained that they would be “similar to airport transit zones”. “While it is located in the territory of the given state, the entry into the transit zone does not

qualify, in immigration terms, as an entry into that state."88

The law and the statements of the officials raise concerns that Hungary aims to arbitrarily exempt part of its territory from its jurisdiction and from the application of its human rights obligations.

“Transit zones”, as zones claimed to be outside a country’s territory or jurisdiction, have been criticised by

the European Court of Human Rights. In the case of Amuur v. France, involving three Somali asylum seekers held in a transit zone at Paris-Orly airport, the European Court declared that “despite the name, the international zone does not have extraterritorial status”.89 It thus rejected the argument provided by French

authorities that applicants in the transit zone did not fall under the French jurisdiction, and declared that

holding the asylum seekers in the transit zone constituted a violation of the right to liberty.

Asylum-seekers entering the “transit zone” are under the jurisdiction of Hungary, as they are “under power and effective control” of Hungarian authorities90 carrying out the asylum procedure.91 Hungary has therefore

the same obligations towards the asylum-seekers entering the “transit zones” as the obligations towards asylum-seekers in the rest of its territory, including providing safeguards against refoulement.

83 EU Procedure Directive (Recast) 2013/32/EU, Article 46(3).

84 Recast Directive 2013/32/EU, Article 10(3)a

85 On the basis that all persons seeking asylum from the “transit zones” entered from Serbia (Section

51(2)(b) of the Asylum Law).

86 Section 15/A (1) of the Asylum Law LXXX/2007 (September Amendment).

87 Section 71/4 (5) of the Asylum Law LXXX/2007.

88 See: http://uk.reuters.com/article/2015/09/09/uk-europe-migrants-hungary-transit-

idUKKCN0R91XW20150909

89 Amuur v. France. Judgment (App. No. 19776/92), para 52. Available at:

http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-57988#{"itemid":["001-57988"]}

90 UN Human Rights Committee, General Comment no. 31., CCPR/C/21/Rev.1/Add. 1326 May 2004,

para 10.

91 Section 71/A (3) of the Asylum Law LXXX/2007 (September Amendment).



20

THE CRIMINALISATION OF

IRREGULAR ENTRY INTO HUNGARY

As of 15 September, all those entering Hungary “unauthorized” through the border fence

are committing a criminal offence punishable with up to three years of prison and/or

expulsion.92 The law further criminalizes “damaging of the border fence”, an offence

punishable with between one to five years imprisonment; 93 “hampering the construction

work of the border barrier” which could lead to a prison sentence up to one year;94 and

aiding “another person crossing the state border” illegally is punishable with one to five

years.95

According to the position issued by the Hungarian Prosecutor General in 2007,96 criminal

proceedings should be suspended if a person applies for asylum. Criminalisation and

detention of refugees and asylum-seekers contradicts the 1951 Refugee Convention which

bans imposition of penalties upon refugees for entering a country irregularly.97 Asylum-

seekers must not be subject to criminal sanctions or otherwise penalized for the use of false

documents or irregular entry. In the absence of safe and legal routes for the majority of

refugees to reach EU countries, most have no choice but to enter the EU irregularly at its

external borders.

Although the cases related to the new crimes of “prohibited crossing of the border” and

“damaging the border barrier” are likely to involve foreigners, the law does not oblige the

authorities to provide a written translation of essential documents such as the indictment

and the court decision on the prison sentence as required by the EU Directive on the right

to interpretation and translation in criminal proceedings98 and by international fair trial

standards.

SZEGED TRIALS On 23 September 2015, Amnesty International staff observed a trial at the Szeged Regional Court of three men from Afghanistan who were apprehended for illegal border crossing by the police on 21 September in the

village of Kelebia close the Serbian border. The judge decided to merge the three cases into one hearing on the basis that the men were apprehended on the same day and were charged with the same crime. The

indictment was not provided to them in writing but was read to them by the court’s translator.

The men said they fled Afghanistan as they feared for their safety. One of them declared that he would like to apply for asylum in Sweden or Germany. Another explained that the reason why he left Afghanistan was that

he worked as a translator for the Afghani military and police and received threats. All three of them pleaded

92 Section 352/A (1-4) and Section 60 (2a) of the Criminal Code

93 Section 352/B (1-4) of the Criminal Code

94 Section 352/C of the Criminal Code

95 Section 353(1) of the Criminal Code (Section 32.1 of the Amendment).

96 See: Letter of the Prosecutor General sent in July 2008 to, Lloyd Dakin, regional

representative of UNHCR Available here:

http://helsinki.hu/wpcontent/uploads/LegfUgyesz_valasz-UNHCRnak.pdf 97 Article 31

98 Article 3(2) Directive 2010/64/EU



21

guilty of “prohibited crossing of the border barrier” although, according to the police report, at least one of them said if he had known that he committed a crime he would have chosen another way to enter the country

legally.

The defence lawyer stated that the three men were fleeing an armed conflict and were in need of international protection. She raised concerns that Serbia, where the men were supposed to be expelled to

under the indictment, was not a safe country of transit and asked for the three men to be released. Despite this, within less than 50 minutes, the judge found all three men guilty as charged and ordered their

expulsion to Serbia. In addition, the men were ordered to pay the 88 Euros for the court and legal aid fee each. The judge considered that there were a number of legal ways to enter the EU and rejected the

defendants’ concerns, stating that Serbia was a safe country.

A court worker told Amnesty International that processing of the expulsion orders takes usually one to two days. “If the Serbian authorities don’t cooperate, the border police simply escorts the migrants to the border

and asks them to proceed to the other side.”99 The source also explained that the majority of refugees and migrants who are brought to the Szeged Regional Court decide not to appeal the verdicts as this would only

prolong their stay in custody without any real chance to remedy the first decision.

Amnesty International is concerned over the shortcomings of the criminal proceedings against refugees and migrants at the Szeged Regional Court. The observation of the hearing, as well as media reports from

hearings on 16 September 2015, indicate that the defendants do not receive the translations of the necessary documents in writing, the hearings very short, ranging from 27 to 113 minutes,100 and the judges

don’t take into account the statements of the defence lawyers that their clients are in need of international protection.

From 16 to 22 September the Szeged Regional Court issued 142 decisions relating to illegal entry, all of them

resulting in convictions. 134 were final and in eight cases the defendants decided to appeal.101

Another source of concern is the criminalisation of aiding of illegal border crossing. The law

provides for a very broad definition of “smuggling” and doesn’t require that an offender

would have financial or material benefit from it. This puts the Hungarian law at odds with

the UN Protocol against the Smuggling of Migrants which defines smuggling of migrants as

“the procurement, in order to obtain, directly or indirectly, a financial or other material

benefit, of the illegal entry of a person into a State Party”.102 The provisions of the

Hungarian Criminal Code targeting refugees and migrants and those who help them are in

fact breaching the principles of the Protocol that clearly states that its purpose is “to

prevent and combat the smuggling of migrants… while protecting the rights of smuggled

migrants.”103

Criminalization of irregular entry as currently observed in Hungary is a disproportionate

border control measure. Amnesty International considers that, if at all, irregular migration,

including entry and stay, should be treated as administrative offences. Detention of

migrants on the grounds of their irregular status should always be a measure of last resort.

99 The person requested that they remain anonymous.

100

Index.hu (in Hungarian), 16 September 2015. “Bilincs, víz, sírás: zakatol az ítéletgyár Szegeden

101 Hungarian Helsinki Committee, 23 September 2015 (email exchange with Amnesty International).

102 Protocol against the Smuggling of Migrants by Land, Sea and Air, Supplementing the United

Nations Convention against Transnational Organized Crime. Article 3(a).

103 Article 2.



22

THE USE OF FORCE TO REPEL

REFUGEES AND MIGRANTS AT THE

BORDER On 21 September Hungary's Parliament passed legislation authorizing the deployment of

military forces to assist the police in securing the border and territory of Hungary in cases of

“crisis caused by mass immigration”.104 The law authorised the military and the police

while securing the border to use rubber bullets, tear gas grenades and pyrotechnical

devices. The next day the Parliament passed a resolution which called for the use of “all

available measures to defend Hungarian borders”.105

Amnesty International is concerned that the Parliamentary call to use “all available

measures” could open the way to excessive use of force with the risk of causing serious

injury and even death. This would be in clear violation of Hungary’s international legal

obligations to respect and protect the rights to life and to security of the person, including

bodily and mental integrity, and the right not to be subjected to cruel, inhuman or

degrading treatment.106

Rubber bullets can cause serious injury, especially when hitting the head or upper torso.

They may only be used if aimed and carefully targeted exclusively at individuals engaged in

violence against persons, and only when other means have failed to stop them. They must

never be fired randomly at a crowd or used as a means of dispersing a crowd. Devices such

as tear gas or water cannon have indiscriminate effects and a high potential to cause harm.

They may only be used to disperse a crowd in a situation of generalized violence, and only

when all other means have failed to contain such violence and if people have the

opportunity to disperse. They must never be used in a confined space or where routes of

escape are blocked.

Weapons such as these are sometimes described as non-lethal, but almost any device of

this kind can potentially cause serious injury or death. Accordingly, such weapons are more

accurately described as “less lethal”, the term nowadays widely used in law enforcement for

any device apart from those specifically designed to kill.

Even if the use of force is necessary in order to achieve a particular law enforcement

purpose, such as controlling the border, international standards require that the authorities

exercise restraint in using it and it must be proportionate to the purpose for which it is

used. The law enforcement purpose must not be pursued at any cost. If achieving the law

enforcement purpose requires a level of force inflicting harm which outweighs the beneficial

effect, the authorities must accept that the purpose may not be achieved, and that people

enter the territory.

104 Act CXLII/2015 on the Law on Police and Military.

105 The resolution was proposed on 28 August and adopted on 22 September. See (in Hungarian):

http://www.parlament.hu/irom40/05984/05984.pdf

106 See: International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, Articles 6, 7 and 9 (including specifically

General Comment 35 on Article 9 by the UN Human Rights Committee); European Convention on

Human Rights, Articles 2 and 3.



23

International law and standards on the use of force by law enforcement officials apply to

any security forces, including military forces who exercise police powers.107 This means

that, if military forces are deployed to border control or other public order functions, they

must be given clear instructions and full training in operational public order management

which is effective in changing their operational mindset to a law enforcement approach of

de-escalation, avoidance of the use of force, and minimizing damage and injury.108 This is

fundamentally different from the regular operational approach of the military who are

trained to confront an enemy in situations of armed conflict where force, including lethal

force, is the first choice of action. Under the UN Basic Principles on the Use of Force and

Firearms, law enforcement officials must, as far as possible, apply non-violent means before

resorting to the use of force, which they may use only if non-violent means remain

ineffective or without any promise of achieving the intended result.109

The Hungarian authorities must ensure full accountability, including effective reporting and

review procedures for any use of force by security forces, in particular if it has led to deaths

or serious injuries, with disciplinary and criminal measures where appropriate. Commanding

and superior officers must be held accountable not only for unlawful orders they have given,

but also for failings and other omissions in their superior and command responsibility which

resulted in death or serious injury. In particular, they should be held liable if they knew or

ought to have known that the members of the security forces under their control and

command committed unlawful acts and if they have failed to prevent them from doing so.

Amnesty International is concerned over the reports of excessive use of force against

refugees and migrants on 16 September 2015, when the police responded to the crowd

demanding for a border gate to be open110 by spraying the people with water cannon,

pepper spray and tear gas. (See above: Making access to asylum impossible). Examples

such as these raise concerns over escalation of conflict or violence by the security forces.

The physical appearance of the security forces in any public order situation should not

contribute to creating or increasing existing tensions, increasing the likelihood that law

enforcement officials will resort to the use of force, rather than trying to avoid the need to

do so.

Amnesty International has seen photographic images from 26 September capturing the

operation of the police and army on the border between Croatia and Hungary at the

Beremend border crossing and at the train station in the village of Zakány.111 They show

deployment of HMWWV-pattern armoured vehicles mounted with heavy machine guns, and

soldiers armed with special-forces style firearms, including M4 pattern rifles.

These images indicate that Hungary is running a heavily militarised operation on its borders

in the context of the "crises caused by mass immigration" as declared by the government on

15 September. International law is clear that the use of firearms in law enforcement is

prohibited except to prevent an imminent threat of death or serious injury.112 Firearms must

never be used as a tactical tool for the management of crowds, whether in situations of

unauthorised border crossing or in any other public order situation. They may only be used

for the purpose of saving another life.

107 Code of Conduct for Law Enforcement Officials; Basic Principles on the Use of Force and Firearms

by Law Enforcement Officials (Basic Principles). 108See, for example, Caracazo v. Venezuela (Series C No. 98), Inter-American Court of Human Rights

(2002)

109 Basic Principle 4

110 Some refugees and migrants threw shoes and water bottles towards the riot police.

111 Images on files with Amnesty International taken on 25 and 26 September 2015.

112 See Basic Principle 9



24

THE EXCESSIVE USE OF FORCE AGAINST REFUGEES AND MIGRANTS ON 16 SEPTEMBER On 16 September, the tensions between police and desperate refugees and migrants stuck

at the police barriers escalated. There was no information available to them as to whether

the barriers blocking the border crossing would be removed and whether they would be able

to apply for asylum. From early morning, Amnesty International observed armoured

vehicles, water cannons and a group of about 100 to 150 riot police officers positioned

behind the border barrier. Refugees and migrants were standing at the border barrier

demanding for it to be open, some threw shoes and water bottles towards the riot police. At

about 4pm, the police responded by spraying the crowd with water cannons, pepper spray

and tear gas. Amnesty International delegates found empty tear gas canisters on the site

and journalists reported gas canisters being thrown from the Hungarian side of the border

towards the crowd.113 A number of people were treated by Médecins Sans Frontières

staff.114

One of the refugees from Syria described the scene to Amnesty International:

“We came to this gate to let us pass to Hungary. They shut the gate in our face and in

addition sprayed us with [tear] gas. They hurt children, women, all of us. Where are the

human rights? There is no humanity in this. There is no human rights here, nothing. Maybe

about four or five people they fell down, they collapsed and were taken by ambulance. They

[Hungarians] have to do something for the human rights. They have to open the gates.

Where will all these people go? All these people are sleeping on the street. Where will they

go all these children, women and old people? They are freezing outside without food,

without anything.”115

According to the reports of the journalists present on the site, later that afternoon, a small

group of people forced the border barrier open, approximately 20 meters away from the

border crossing gate.116 The police initially responded with pepper spray. Some people ran

from the scene while some women and children lay on the ground. The riot police

eventually sealed off the border again separating at least nine people, including four

children, from their families.117 Eyewitnesses told Amnesty International that the Hungarian

police picked up a mother and child and took them away. One father of an eight year old

child told Amnesty International: “My child was taken from me as I was holding his hand

and we’ve been separated ever since.”

Jahiya, a 23-year old Syrian was one of the people who got separated from his brother, who

remained on the Hungarian side.

113 Tweet of Andrew Connelly, 16 September 2015: “A gas canister thrown from #Hungary just landed

at my feet. I’m 100 metres inside #Serbia territory.”

114 The Guardian. Clashes at border with Serbia as Croatia says it cannot take more refugees – as it

happened. 16 September. 10:23. Available at:

http://www.theguardian.com/world/live/2015/sep/17/refugee-crisis-thousands-enter-croatia-after-

hungarys-crackdown-live-updates#block-55fade8be4b04bef224b07e2

115 Interview in Horgoš, 16 September 2016.

116 The Budapest Beacon. 21 September 2015. “Counter-terrorism police ratcheted up violence at

Röszke says photographer” http://budapestbeacon.com/featured-articles/counter-terrorism-police-

ratcheted-up-violence-at-roszke-says-photographer/27778 117 Amnesty International press release, 16 September 2015. “Hungary: Children separated from

families by police amid border chaos”.



25

BROTHERS SEPARATED BY THE BORDER: JAHIYA’S STORY “The Afghans and Pakistanis stood there at the gate, there was some noise. At some point we heard that the gate was open. I took my family and bags and went to the gate. We went up and stood at the gate and the

guys told us that police said the families will get inside. There were a lot of families there, we went inside. We were on the Hungarian side of the border.

The Hungarian police surrounded us in a circle, and behind the families there were single guys. We were

saying “thank you” to the police and at the same time we were crying because we passed the border and were happy our suffering ended.

A minute later, everything changed. The police started beating us with the batons, they beat us and used the

spray on us. I ran outside, but I didn’t find my family. I was shouting: “where are you?” [Then] I found my mother, father, and my brother’s daughter. At this moment, I still don’t know where my brother, his wife and

their two children were. I don’t know where they are… they [most likely] took them and they are on the other [Hungarian] side... My mother feels so bad and she wants to know what’s going on. Why did they detain

them? They did not do anything, they are not criminals, just family and children. What do they need from them?”118

Following the intervention of the Serbian minister in charge of migration, Aleksandar Vulin,

at least three families were reunited in Hungary..119 Amnesty International has been unable

to establish whether the remaining families have since been reunited.

118 Interview at Horgoš, 16 September 2015.

119 Source (in Hungarian): http://police.hu/hirek-es-informaciok/legfrissebb-

hireink/hatarvadasz/csaladegyesites



26

RECOMMENDATIONS In the light of the findings above, Amnesty International makes the following

recommendations:

The government of Hungary

• To repeal the legislative amendments criminalizing “illegal entry”, introducing

“transit zones” at the border and the list of “safe countries”;

• To provide asylum-seekers with access to Hungarian territory, prompt and effective

individual asylum procedure and adequate reception conditions;

• To instruct security forces deployed to secure the borders to use non-violent means

before resorting to the use of force, and, in cases where use of force might be

necessary, to exercise restraint and to use force only as far as it is proportionate to

the objective. Any excessive use of force must be promptly investigated in an

independent and impartial manner.

The European Commission

• To use all necessary means, including formal infringement proceedings, to ensure

Hungary’s full compliance with European Union law;

• To start a structured dialogue with Hungary within the EU Framework to strengthen

the Rule of Law.

The European Parliament, the European Commission and EU Member States

• Submit a reasoned proposal to the European Council to activate the preventive

mechanism foreseen under Article 7(1)TEU, in the light of the evidence of “a clear

risk of a serious breach of the values referred to in Article 2 TEU”, including "the

respect for human dignity... and respect for human rights".

The EU states participating in the Dublin Regulation

• To refrain from transferring asylum-seekers back to Hungary on the basis of

deficiencies in reception conditions and asylum procedures and a genuine risk of

refoulement due to legislation designating Serbia as safe third country.

final and formatted hungary briefing 8102015 · fenced out hungary’s violations of the rights of...

Documents